청구이의
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
A notary public of the defendant against the plaintiff on June 3, 2014 by C.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases.
The fourth to fourth (2.b.3) of the judgment of the first instance shall be conducted by putting the fourth to fourth (2.b.3) as follows:
“3) According to the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant on June 3, 2014. On August 30, 2014, KRW 50 million on August 30, 2015, KRW 100 million on August 30, 2015, KRW 350 million on August 30, 2016, and KRW 350 million on August 30, 2017, KRW 500,000 on KRW 5050,000,000 on KRW 850,000,000,000 on KRW 50,000,000,000 on KRW 850,000,000,000 on KRW 505,00,000,000,000 on KRW 850,000,00 on the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the repayment was made is also difficult.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.
Meanwhile, there is no dispute over the Plaintiff’s failure to repay KRW 100 million in total of KRW 350 million and KRW 450 million in the amount to be repaid on August 30, 2016 and August 30, 2017, among the installment payments stipulated in the instant notarial deed.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is a principal of KRW 450 million among the obligations based on the Notarial Deed of this case, and the Plaintiff is a loss of the benefit of time.